Microsoft Windows 11 to be a free upgrade for Windows 10 users

[Rubarb]

Be nice iff Hexus ran a poll on who thinks we should have tpm as a requirment in windows 11?

[kalniel]

Be nice iff Hexus ran a poll on who thinks we should have tpm as a requirment in windows 11?

Before we know what it's being used for?

[LSG501]

Perhaps we'll find out when they release more details. I'd guess it's about slightly improving the security of Windows, in particular user authentication. That suggests there will be more online connectivity and MS want to make sure that it's really you accessing your MS account and not someone else. Apple went that way a long time ago and MS caught some flack for being behind in that area. It could also be about helping prevent malicious software spoofing other softwares etc.

It could also just be about trying to make people buy new pc's which in turn makes the oem manufacturers (who now supply most of the income for windows) 'happy' due to people buying more of their offerings (we'll ignore the lack of product to buy)... we all know that current cpu's offer very little reason to upgrade for a large percentage of users, the average home user who does web browsing and office stuff at home isn't really going to notice much difference between a 2500k and the new 11xxx series. Obviously MS aren't going to admit this so we'll get all the 'PR' to try and limit the bad PR they're getting over this move.

MS really needs to come out and say exactly why they've stuck tpm 2.0 as a requirement, all I'm seeing seems to relate to bitlocker and windows hello (which ties into the need for a camera on mobile hardware.... hmm potential tracking/privacy issues there imo)

It's made even more 'curious' when it's been reported that they'll allow companies to make hardware without tpm being enabled (reddit). I'm all for improving security but why not allow a usb based key as an alternative, if it's good enough for business I'm sure it's good enough for home users, plus it's not like we can remove a tpm chip between sessions so it could arguably be seen as more secure.

[kalniel]

That's interesting. Maybe back to the days of OEM/system builders being the way that enthusiasts go down, though I guess that might tie the install down to a specific hardware config (which also provides some measure of security, if you say that your account can only be accessed by a device matching that particular fingerprint).

[LSG501]

That's interesting. Maybe back to the days of OEM/system builders being the way that enthusiasts go down, though I guess that might tie the install down to a specific hardware config (which also provides some measure of security, if you say that your account can only be accessed by a device matching that particular fingerprint).

With the recent gpu shortages a fair few people have been suggesting that approach because its 'cheaper'.... personally having used a system builder to build arguably the most expensive desktop machine I've owned (relative pricing etc) and then due to their choice of (cheap) psu having it fail costing me nearly half the cost again I'm not sure I'd want to go that way ever again.

TBH you could look at the forced tpm in so many ways, tracking, restricting use of certain features which then require a subscription etc. While I'm not quite as bad as saracen I can understand where's coming from a lot of the time, it's made even worse because a large portion of the younger generation just really don't care about these companies having their data or so much control....

Essentially there are so many other ways of 'securing' the OS which don't require TPM they could have mandated needing to use 'something' that 'secures' the pc but not restricting things in a way that could cause forced obsolescence.

[kalniel]

With the recent gpu shortages a fair few people have been suggesting that approach because its 'cheaper'.... personally having used a system builder to build arguably the most expensive desktop machine I've owned (relative pricing etc) and then due to their choice of (cheap) psu having it fail costing me nearly half the cost again I'm not sure I'd want to go that way ever again.

I meant more the time when OEM licenses were only available for system builders, but there was nothing stopping individual enthusiasts registering as a system builder with MS and building a system for themselves. There could well be an equivalent in the future where a custom windows 11 build (eg using the official creation tools - bonus marks for giving yourself a fancy corporate branding ) bypasses the TPM requirement, but locks that license to that particular hardware.

So it could be as simple as TPM = roaming license, you just need an MS account (TPM used to aid authentication) and you can use on any machine, no TPM = hardware specific license.

[LSG501]

I meant more the time when OEM licenses were only available for system builders, but there was nothing stopping individual enthusiasts registering as a system builder with MS and building a system for themselves. There could well be an equivalent in the future where a custom windows 11 build (eg using the official creation tools - bonus marks for giving yourself a fancy corporate branding ) bypasses the TPM requirement, but locks that license to that particular hardware.

Oh... well I have my own business so I've got the corporate branding sorted lol

[cheesemp]

This TPM 2.0 requirement is going to kill off a lot of old hardware. Only my Ryzen 3600 has support. All my old laptops do not. I get that security in Windows need beefing up. Its pretty crap but this should be optional (Just stick up a big warning that your system is less secure, please upgrade if you want more security). I hate e-waste and this is going to cause so much as people freak out.

[Corky34]

I guess one of the things driving Microsoft to make TPM a requirement is a recent report they commissioned showing "...that more than 80% of enterprises have experienced at least one firmware attack in the past two years". That seems awfully high to me, suspiciously so, i thought firmware attacks were relatively rare.

[Kovoet]

Going to have to wait till about November. Think i'll do as soon as.

[Kovoet]

This TPM 2.0 requirement is going to kill off a lot of old hardware. Only my Ryzen 3600 has support. All my old laptops do not. I get that security in Windows need beefing up. Its pretty crap but this should be optional (Just stick up a big warning that your system is less secure, please upgrade if you want more security). I hate e-waste and this is going to cause so much as people freak out.


I'm glad my new motherboard has the option to enable it. But I was lucky to get the new 5900x

[Saracen999]

@ Kovoet .... missed the quote marks for the first para, Kovo.

[Rubarb]

I guess one of the things driving Microsoft to make TPM a requirement is a recent report they commissioned showing "...that more than 80% of enterprises have experienced at least one firmware attack in the past two years". That seems awfully high to me, suspiciously so, i thought firmware attacks were relatively rare.

Then just make the enterprise version require tpm/ secure boot..... simple?

[philehidiot]

Well, looks like I'll be screening all new hardware for Linux drivers.